Syria's slaughter

Last year, President Barack Obama outlined what some wondered might be an "Obama doctrine" for foreign intervention when he announced the military support of Libyan rebels because of the regime's imminent slaughter of civilians. But now we understand how that criterion alone won't justify intervention, given how Syria's relentless slaughter of its own civilians has been allowed to reach, by some estimates, 8,000 dead, mostly civilians.

Foreign policy matters aren't so easily handled, however. Doctrines are of little use if a nation is powerless to enforce them. Syria presents special challenges to the United States because of its strategic value. Russia and China remain vehemently, even belligerently, opposed to any united, multinational condemnation, let alone action, against the current violence. Syria is a tight ally of Iran, and the toppling of President Bashar Assad's regime could signal the beginning of a political turning point in the region, which would go against Russian and Chinese interests.

Syria's strategic importance is precisely the reason the United States should press for regime change, but it also is the reason why unilateral action would be so dangerous.

Assad, like countless other despots before him, will not voluntarily relinquish power. Nor is he likely to soften his actions due to any outside pressures short of the kind that may actually threaten his regime. The world has tried sanctions and harsh diplomatic language with little effect. The European Union on Monday agreed to a new round of sanctions, freezing the assets of seven Syrian officials, as well as those of the Syrian central bank. They made it illegal to buy gold, precious metals or diamonds from Syria and banned any cargo flights to that country from the European Union.

All of which likely will elicit yawns from Assad, who would rather live under those sanctions than step down.

Syria held "elections" over the weekend to approve a new constitution — one that gives the pretense of a transition to a multiparty democracy. It would allow multiparty candidates in future elections and impose a limit of two seven-year terms on the president. But that requirement is not retroactive, meaning that Assad could serve 14 more years after his next term begins, carrying him through to 2028. Much could happen between now and then.

In typical fashion, the Assad regime claimed that nearly 90 percent of voters approved this referendum, which was boycotted by opposition forces.